It could take 1,800 years for the UK to add 1ppm of CO2 to the global total. Bear that in mind when you realise that even doubling the global CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming!
By Jerry Wraith
The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) claims for causing Climate Change are continually being promoted by many institutions, including the IPCC, the media, (BBC, Sky TV, The Guardian for example), and politicians. The UK is being subjected to crippling costs due to scrapping coal fired power stations (at the EU’s demand) and trying to replace them with renewable forms of energy. This is costing a fortune for UK taxpayers as renewables are unreliable, very expensive and demand huge subsidies. They also demand reliable back-up systems when the “wind don’t blow” and “the sun don’t shine”! In addition, our petrol and diesel fuelled cars are being banned in favour of EV’s which again raise horrendous operational problems.
The figures below are copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan: (Full Lecture)
The graph above shows that increasing CO2 levels from 50ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming. The graph below defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2 more clearly. The most significant points are the warming effect of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 300ppm to the warming effect at today’s level of about 400ppm is practically indiscernible. This proves beyond any doubt that increasing CO2 by 100ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature.
The above graph is based on calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer. Their calculations are compared to real measurements as shown in the graph below.
NOW look at the graph below, comparing IPCC calculations with measured results (copied from “There Is No Climate Crisis” by David Craig, published by The Original Book Company in 2021.)
This clearly proves that the IPCC climate models are grossly inaccurate as their calculated global temperature rise, due to increasing CO2, is over 3 to 5 times, average 3.5 times) the actual recorded results. The IPCC is therefore a completely disreputable organisation and must be completely ignored. This has been confirmed by Professor Chris Holland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research who said:
“The data doesn’t matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We are basing them on the climate models.”
In addition, Ottmar Edenhofer, previous Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group 111 “Mitigation of Climate Change” has apparently also completely destroyed the case for AGW by saying:
“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” (My highlighting.)
The UK’s contribution to increasing CO2 can be estimated as follows:
Here’s a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels:
This shows that in 1980 global CO2 was 330ppm. This increased to 390ppm in 2010. This means that global CO2 increased by 55ppm in 30 years, or by 55/30 = 1.8ppm/year of which humans provided 3% or 0.055ppm/year. The UK is generally recognised as providing only 1% of the total human contribution to CO2 or 1/100 x 0.055 = 0.00055ppm/annum.
Hence to ADD 1ppm to the global CO2 total will take the UK 1/0.00055 or 1,800 YEARS!
For this our politicians are ruining the economy of the UK for a TOTALLY WORTHLESS EXERCISE. Made much worse by the FACT that CO2 has a trivially negligible effect on global warming at these concentrations!
Finally, it should be noted that NASA admitted that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate warming. See the Natural News article by Ethan Huff, dated Fri, 30 Aug 2019.
are you going to believe calculations based on the real facts which give good results with the real world,
are you going to believe IPCC calculations, which are artificially produced and bear little or no relation to the real world to bolster their politically motivated case that increasing man made CO2 is having a catastrophic warming effect on the earth’s climate?
1 Talking of reparations for third world countries is a ridiculously ludicrous idea as any increase in the worlds CO2 due to our industrial revolution has a vanishingly small effect on global warming.
2 Promoting Climate Change (meaning AGW induced Climate Change) is totally FAKE propaganda. As confirmed in the quotes above.
3 Using CO2 levels to debate Climate Change is a worthless exercise as CO2 makes a vanishingly small effect on global warming. Especially, as the UK produces only 1% of the world’s 3% annual human production of CO2. YET the stupid Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy “provided £1,173,666.21 (excl. VAT) of taxpayer’s money to the contractor responsible for delivering the ongoing UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the 2021/2022 financial year. The outputs of this work included providing the data for the 2020 “UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, and a number of other products”. What a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money!
4 REDUCING CO2 IS PROBABLY HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE WORLDS POPULATION! IF CO2 LEVEL GETS TOO LOW ALL WORLD VEGETATION WILL DIE AND MANKIND WITH IT! MORE CO2 INCREASES WORLD GREENING AND PLANT GROWTH! (Proven by satellite observations and greenhouse use of CO2.
5 Dr Sheahan also makes the point that Methane, CH4 and Nitrous Oxide, N2O are also insignificant with regard to global warming and even less effective than the vanishingly small effect of CO2.
6 Earth’s climate is changing and has always changed, but this has virtually nothing to do with CO2 which is a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere. The climate changes are due to the sun and the earths eccentric orbit round the sun. See the article “The woman who could cancel net zero” by Iain Hunter in The Conservative Woman, Dec 22, 2022.
7 The true purpose of the IPCC is to transfer wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations and form a global government. (The campaign about CO2 is just a smoke screen. Whether CO2 can warm the atmosphere is irrelevant.) The plan was allegedly set out in clause 38 of the draft treaty put to the IPCC conference in Copenhagen 2009. It stated that the new global government will have three basic pillars: Government; Facilitative Mechanism; and Financial Mechanism. It will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties (IPCC) and managed by the support staff of the IPCC.
CONCLUSION It is astonishing that UK politicians, now paid £84,144/annum + expenses, by UK taxpayers are
SO INCREDIBLY DECEITFUL
as to base policy, costing UK taxpayers £trillions and ruining the economy of the UK, on eliminating a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST! The IPCC is clearly a political project, not a technical one, therefore politicians and councillors, must pay the price. So, the UK taxpayers must be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want the UK economy, and their personal well being destroyed for the purposes of this global government.
The most important issue about BREXIT was that no-one could precisely predict how well or badly the UK would do after BREXIT as it was all in the future. The “Remainers” continually talked about damage to the UK economy, lost trade, influence, etc. but could not substantiate any of these claims with facts. However, because we had already been in the EEC/EU for over 40 years the “leavers” had plenty of facts to prove what a total political and economic disaster membership of the EU had been for the UK. Thankfully the general public saw through the wild claims made by the Remainers and voted to leave.
Unfortunately, since then the substantial benefits of Brexit have not been pursued actively enough to convince the remainer fraternity how much better off we could and should be. Even now, groups of people are still agitating for the UK to re-join the common market, and even to re-join the EU. The Liberal Democrats even has a policy to re-join the EU, despite the overwhelming democratic vote to leave in 2016. Why these rejoiners wish to re-join the undemocratic, un-economic EU is an absolute mystery!
Hence, it is time to summarise the horrendous costs of being in the EU and how the EU has systematically fleeced the UK, and its taxpayers, over the period of the UK’s membership to enlighten them.
2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS AND FUTURE COSTS OF BEING IN THE EU 2.1 PREVIOUS COSTS
2.1.1 COST OF CUSTOMS UNION UP TO AN EXTRA £1,000 to £2,700/YEAR/HOUSEHOLD?
NB In 2014 UK exporters to the EU saved just under £80/household in import duties. Yet in 2014 it cost UK householders up to an extra £1,000 to £2,700/household because the UK was in the EU! A bad deal for UK householders and taxpayers.
2.1.2 TRADING WITH THE EEC/EU SINCE 1973 to 2021: DEFICIT OF £2.07 TRILLION NB Trading with the rest of the world from 1973 to 2021: SURPLUS of £850 billion! 2.1.3 ANNUAL COST OF BEING IN THE EU CURRENTLY £221 BILLION? 2.1.4 POSSIBLE COST OF BEING IN THE EU FOR 45 YEARS £13.22 TRILLION
2.1.5 TOTAL CURRENT COST TO 2021 OF UK NETT BUDGETARY PAYMENTS TO THE EU: £343 BILLION
NB This vast total cost all had to be borrowed and must currently cost the UK nearly £9 billion/annum in interest charges on this cost alone, which does NOT include the annual interest charges on the cost of borrowing all the annual sums.
2.1.6 CURRENT LIABILITY OF BEING IN THE EU UP TO £441 BILLION EUROS 2.1.7 LOSS OF FISHING RIGHTS SINCE JOINING £100 to £150 BILLION 2.2 EXTRAFUTURE COSTS ON RE-JOINING THE EU
2.2.1 SUPPORTING THE FUTURE COST, €32 TRILLION, OF PAY AS YOU GO EU PENSIONS
2.2.2 COST OF CONVERTING FROM POUNDS TO EUROS: £53 BILLION? 2.2.3 SUPPORTING BANKRUPT EU COUNTRIES: ITALY, SPAIN, PORTUGAL 3 COST OF CUSTOMS UNION UP TO AN EXTRA £2,700/YEAR/HOUSEHOLD?
3.1 It was claimed during the referendum campaign and elsewhere that being in the customs union cost the average household up to an extra £1,000/annum. This figure was referred to by Tim Congdon on page 30 in his 2013 report “How much does the European Union cost Britain?” and comes from an OECD report quoted by Booker and North in their book “The Mad Officials”.
NB Sir Patrick Minford later claimed, (Sunday Express, 25th March 2018) that leaving the Customs Union would save the UK £80 billion/annum. This is equivalent to £2,700/household.)
3.2 Congdon later quotes on page 25 of his 2015 report that resource misallocation costed over 3.25% of GDP. Currently GDP is approximately £2 trillion. Hence 3.25% of this is £65 billion or about £2,170/household. Congdon states on page 16 of the report, referred to above, that the average British household “pays” the EU £750/year as a direct fiscal cost to finance the UK’s contribution to the EU budget.
3.3 These extra costs must hurt poorer households, the Labour Party’s traditional support base, the most. So why does the Labour Party support staying in the EU and making their supporters suffer so much?
3.4 The only conceivable benefit for being in the EU is that by belonging to the tariff free customs union UK exporters saved, about 1% on EU import duties, Ref 3.1.
3.5 In 2014, the amount saved on import duties by UK exporters was about 1% or less than £3 billion at £2.28 billion. This amounted to about £76 for each UK taxpayer.
3.6 So the Labour Party, which is partly funded by the trade unionists political levy, is expecting their members (there are 7 million trade unionists) to pay an extra £1,000/head/annum (or £2,700/head?) to save UK exporters to the EU on average just £76/head/annum. Not a good deal for UK households and trade unionists!
3.7 The EU is a Customs Union. This means that goods produced by EU countries are protected by imposing tariffs on goods imported from outside the EU. The EU tariff on dairy products is particularly high, (probably to protect inefficient French farmers) at 35.4%. This hit
the UK hard as much of the UK’s food is imported. It also hit New Zealand very hard as the UK was New Zealand’s prime importer of New Zealand butter and lamb. Some EU tariffs on non-EU imported goods are listed in Figure 3.1 derived from Ref 3.2.
3.8 So, why is the UK in the EU at all? Clearly big UK business exporters to the EU can save, on average, £75/head on EU tariffs. This means more money for their shareholders, directors etc. These same businesses probably fund the LibLabCon political parties and tell them what to do. Is this why the UK is in the EU, despite the huge costs to the UK economy and its citizens and taxpayers?
FIGURE 3.1 EU TARIFFS ON NON-EU IMPORTED GOODS
While the UK is a member of the EU, there are no tariffs on trade with other EU member states. Goods imported into the EU from non-EU countries pay the EU’s common external tariff unless there is a free trade agreement or preferential trade agreement. The tariff rate differs between different goods. While on average EU tariffs are low, they are high for some products, especially agricultural products. The trade weighted average EU tariff for non-agricultural products was 2.3% in 2014 and 8.5% for agricultural products. The table below gives a breakdown by type of product.
WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2017, pg. 82 Average EU tariff by product type (%)
Animal products 15.7
Dairy products 35.4
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5
Coffee, tea 6.1
Cereals and preparations 12.8
Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6
Sugars and confectionery 23.6
Beverages and tobacco 19.6
Other agricultural products 3.6
Fish and fish products 12.0
Minerals and metals 2.0
Wood, paper etc 0.9
Leather, footwear etc 4.1
Non-electrical machinery 1.9
Electrical machinery 2.8
Transport equipment 4.3
Other manufactures 2.6
Source: WTO World Tariff Profiles 2017, p82
Ref 3.1 House of Commons Library, “The economic impact of EU membership on the UK”, Standard Note SN/EP/6730, September 2013. (Quoted in Brexit Magazine No 2, published by the Better Off Out Campaign.) Ref 3.2 House of Commons Briefing Paper, Number 7581, 4 July 2018, “Statistics on UK-EU Trade” by Matthew Ward.
4 TRADING WITH THE EEC/EU SINCE 1973 TO 2021: DEFICIT OF £2.07 TRILLION
4.1 Remainers continually claimed that we must stay in the single market or there would be a disastrous effect on our economy due to loss of trade etc., with the EU.
4.2 Apart from the fact that only a relatively small portion of our economy is tied to trade with the rapidly diminishing market, which is the EU, the fact is, that trading with the EEC/EU since 1973 has currently, in 2021 figures, resulted in the UK building up a £2.07 trillion deficit, see APPENDIX 4.1. (In addition, there are vast overhead costs due to being in the EU. This is discussed in para 5 below).
4.3 This figure represents the current cost, in 2021 values, of the total balance of trade with the EEC/EU since we joined in 1973. It clearly demonstrates how much better it has been for the EU by the UK being in the EU than the other way round and why the EU is so antagonistic about BREXIT.
4.4 Over roughly the same period the current balance of trade with the rest of the world (ROW) was a surplus of £850 billion i.e., a third of our current national debt! See APPENDIX 4.1.
4.5 The Treasury claimed that BREXIT and coming out of the EU with no deal or a bad deal would cost our economy up to 8% loss in GDP in 2025 or thereabouts. However, this figure was probably engineered to support “Project fear” as the European Research Group (ERG) supported the Economists for Free Trade estimate of an £80 billion boost the UK economy over 5 years.
4.6 Trade is a complicated subject, and we import goods from the EU to make things that sell in the EU and the ROW etc., but Joe Public the voter, can surely appreciate the difference between a surplus, (PROFIT), of £850 billion trading with the ROW and a deficit, (LOSS), of £2.07 trillion trading with the EU. Unfortunately, the Labour, Lib Dem parties, far too many Conservatives and delusional remainers apparently can’t!
4.7 Furthermore, the free trade deal with the EU cost the UK taxpayer £billions every year due to lost income from UK import duties on their larger exports to the UK. In addition, import duties paid by UK taxpayers on non-EU goods imported into the UK was lost to the UK treasury as it was claimed by the EU as an EU “own resource”.
4.10 Being in the EU since 1973 has been a 45 year “investment” for the UK. It is relatively pointless just looking at the results for I, 2 or even 5 years. We need to see how good or bad this investment has been for the UK over the whole period.
4.11 Furthermore it is necessary to correct all the figures to the present day. This means that they can all be added up on the same basis.
4.12 I am satisfied that the University of Illinois web site “measuringworth.com” using the “project function” is acceptable for this correction exercise. Some years ago, I was not aware of the website and calculated the total current BoT total from 1973 to 2009 of all the BoT figures. I used the BoE annual interest rates and calculated the interest on the balance annually, in a manner similar to mortgage payments. The total I got using this method was £930 billion compared to the University of Illinois result of £914 billion.
4.13 Please note that although the UK has built up such a large deficit with the EU the actual exports to the EU have not been discussed. The point is that the UK gains no advantage in trade by being in the EU, (see below) and has made a surplus trading with the ROW. Hence UK exports to the EU, although important, would probably have been much better if the UK was OUTSIDE the EU.
4.14 The UK’s export performance would also be even better if many UK industries had not been decimated by EU diktats and by the EU making UK industries move their businesses to other EU countries. Some of these are listed in APP 4.2.
4.15 The adverse effect of being in the EU is clearly demonstrated by the graph in APPENDIX 4.3 which clearly shows how membership of the EU has severely blighted UK trading results since 1973.
4.16 Further proof of the wholly pointless effect of being in the EU “for trade” is clearly proven by Michael Burrage in his report “Where’s the Insider Advantage?” published by Civitas. I have copied an appendix from his report as Appendix 4.4.
4.17 From Burrage’s report the following facts can be established;
The table in Appendix 4.4 lists the top 35 fastest growing exporters of goods to the 11 founding members of the EU’s single market between 1993 and 2011. The table is taken from the report “Where’s the insider advantage”? by Michael Burrage, published by the think-tank Civitas, except for the fourth column which has been added by this author. It proves beyond any doubt that;
• it was NOT necessary to be a member of the EU to access the EU single market and export successfully to the EU
• it was NOT necessary to have a trade agreement with the EU to export successfully to the EU and,
• the USA, China and Russia are the top three largest non-EU trading partners of the EU, none of which have trade agreements with the EU or membership in the EU single market. They trade based on the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
• Hence the UK did NOT NEED TO BE IN THE EU to trade with the EU or with other countries.
This is a complete contradiction of the UK government position
Even worse, all the countries associated in any way with the EU through membership (UK) or EFTA (Norway, Switzerland,) are generally not doing as well in their export performance to the EU as many countries outside the EU.
In his report2, Burrage importantly concludes that;
There is no case that EU membership is good for UK exports or foreign direct investment
• The fact that the UK was the second largest net contributor to the EU’s budget clearly did not grant us any favours when it comes to exports to the EU.
• The UK has not had a balance of trade surplus in goods since 1981, after just 8 years of joining the EEC. (Due partly or mainly to being in the EU?)
• Even if it is claimed that our poor trading performance was not entirely due to being in the EU it is abundantly obvious that being in the EU did not in any way help to prevent it.
• Furthermore, out of the EU, the UK must be in a much stronger exporting position with the rest of the world (ROW) without the enormous overhead cost (£200+ billion/pa) of being in the EU.
Hence being OUTSIDE the EU the UK should also increase its exports to the EU!
TOTAL ANNUAL BALANCE OF TRADE (£ BILLIONS) BETWEEN UK THE EU AND THE REST OF THE WORLD (ROW) CORRECTED TO 2021 FIGURES
BoT SOURCES; 1973 to 1998 “How much does the EU cost Britain”? by G Batten
1999 to 2021 Commons Library Briefing, 3rd Dec 2021 “Statistics on UK -EU trade” CBP 7851
Correction to 2021 values using Project Comp. of University of Illinois web site measuringworth.com
UK BUSINESSES THAT HAVE MOVED TO THE EU, POSSIBLY WITH EU GRANTS
Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds. Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant. British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200. M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact, all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants. Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK taxpayer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry. UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online. Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not anymore, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
From a blog by Keith Sutton, 15 June 2016 (Most of these are disputed by the I love the EU fraternity).
Graphs on Balance of Payments since 1945
UK Balance of Payments
Tejvan Pettinger October 2, 2015, trade
The graph above clearly demonstrates the crippling effect of EU membership and imposed regulations on the UK’s manufacturing ability. The effect of EEC/EU regulations took a few years from 1973 to start taking effect but since 1981 the decline in UK export performance is remarkably similar to the imposition of annual EU regulations and increasing costs to the UK economy of being in the EU. No doubt other factors have played a part in the decline, but the fact remains that this is the performance of UK exporters while the UK is in the EU.
Further proof of the EU’s effect on UK trade was reported by Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph column (05 Dec 2004) that even the EU admitted in its report on competitiveness that if the EU’s regulatory burden could be reduced to that of the USA, then the EU’s GDP would increase substantially. From the EU’s figures Booker quoted that for the UK the annual cost of the EU’s regulatory burden alone was then about £100 billion/annum.
TOP 35 FASTEST-GROWING EXPORTERS OF GOODS TO 11 FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THE EU SINGLE MARKET 1993–2011
Rank % growth Exports/month in 2011 Annual Cost of Being in EU
in US $(1993) In US $bn (2011) in £ Billions (2014)
1 Vietnam 544 0.4 0 2 Qatar 496 0.3 0 3 Ukraine 446 1.1 0 4 China & Hong Kong 429 15.3 0 5 United Arab Emirates 402 2.8 0 6 Russia 377 7.8 0 7 India 367 3.4 0 8 Brazil 357 3.4 0 9 Turkey* 295 6.2 0 10 Nigeria 250 1.1 0 11 Australia 243 2.6 0 12 South Africa* 224 2.1 0 13 Chile* 198 0.6 0 14 Korea* 197 3.0 0 15 Mexico* 176 2.1 0 16 Morocco* 170 1.5 0 17 Singapore 163 2.3 0 18 New Zealand 147 0.3 0 19 Canada 142 2.3 0 20 Bangladesh 129 0.1 0 21 Bahrain 129 0.1 0 22 US 126 22.2 0 23 Switzerland* 114 11.8 ? 24 Saudi Arabia 114 2.3 0 25 Norway* 114 2.7? 26 Kenya 99 0.1 0 27 Egypt* 96 1.1 0 28 UK 81 23.9 190
Source: www.oecd-ilibrary.org.OECD database Monthly Statistics of International Trade * Countries with trade agreements with the EU.
The table above is taken from the report “Where’s the insider advantage”? by Michael Burrage, published by the think-tank Civitas, except for the fourth column which has been added by this author
5 ANNUAL COST OF BEING IN THE EU CURRENTLY £221 BILLION?
5.1 It must also be noted that being in the EU in 2014 could have cost the UK economy £190 billion/annum, (“How much does the European Union cost Britain?”, 2015 version by Prof Tim Congdon). There are obvious conclusions to be drawn from this figure:
• This is an overhead on the whole UK economy. Out of the EU this vast additional cost on the operations of our exporters and our infrastructure can be severely reduced or preferably eliminated.
• This will enable UK exporters to reduce their costs making their goods more attractive, not only to the ROW but to the EU as well.
• Without this vast EU induced overhead the UK will be able to compete for exports to the EU on the same terms as the USA, Japan, China etc. plus many other countries that are not in the EU and not subject to the EU overhead and do not even have a trade deal with the EU.
• Clearly the vast exports from the USA, Japan, China etc are all made under WTO rules and using these rules should therefore not be a problem to UK exporters who have already made a SURPLUS trading with many countries in the ROW using these rules up to 2021
• It was only recently (after 45 years of experience) that ANYONE in the government acknowledged that being in the EU cost the UK a vast amount of money. This was when Jacob Rees Mogg introduced a sunset clause for abolishing many EU imposed laws by 31st Dec 2023. This was clearly being done to benefit UK businesses.
5.2 Congdon’s figure of £190 billion/annum can clearly be argued about by other economists. To put it into context I have plotted various cost estimates on the graph reproduced as Figure 5.1, which are discussed below.
a) The indirect costs which include the costs of applying and administering the thousands of EU Directives and Regulations imposed upon the UK public by the un-elected, un-sackable and unaccountable bureaucrats in the EU are enormous. Unfortunately, these costs are the most contentious to consider as no UK government has ever published any figures and they have all, without exception, absolutely refused to carry out an honest and meaningful cost/benefit analysis. Clearly the results would be so bad for their policy of commitment to EU membership that they would find it impossible to justify continued membership on financial terms alone.
b) Some attempts at estimating this cost for individual years have been made. The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) has proposed a total figure of £130.6 billion for the year 2010. This figure was quoted in the Daily Express Special Edition, published on Saturday, 8th January 2011.
c) In his booklet Batten quotes that for the year 2010 the total direct and indirect costs amounted to £77 billion by a simple summation. But Batten (GB) takes great care to point out throughout his booklet that he always used the lowest estimates of costs wherever possible to avoid being accused of bias. Batten’s figure is considered to be far too low for the following reasons.
d) Christopher Booker pointed out in his Sunday Telegraph column (05 Dec 2004) that even the EU admitted that for the UK the annual cost of the EU’s regulatory burden alone was about £100 billion. If one assumes that the EU regulatory burden is approximately 75% of the total annual cost of being in the EU (see Daily Express, Special Edition, 2011) then the total annual cost due to being in the EU for 2004 could
have been, according to the EU estimate, approximately £133 billion. As this figure is derived from an EU figure it is used as a benchmark against which the estimates below can be assessed.
e) Professor Tim Congdon (TC) recently estimated the total annual cost as £150 billion, and this is assumed to apply to 2011. See his booklet “How much does the EU cost Britain?” published in 2012, which continues the series of booklets started by Batten in 2005.
f) Professor Patrick Minford CBE, (PM) of the Cardiff Business School estimated in 2005 that being in the EU cost the UK between 11% and 38% of GDP, (see blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/09/17/Britain-leave the/euro/) he confirmed that the figures he quoted still seem to be of the right order of magnitude. So, in 2005 as the GDP was £1245 billion, he estimates the cost of being in the EU was between £137 billion to £473 billion and £160 to £545 billion in 2010.
g) These estimates are plotted on Figure 5.1 and it can be seen that Congdon’s figure of £150 billion is approximately mid-way between the EU and TPA figures. Hence, using Congdon’s result, we should have a fairly reliable figure for the annual cost to the UK economy of being in the EU of £150 billion for the year 2011. This figure equates to a cost of being in the EU of £17 million/hour, approximately equivalent to the cost of the annual salaries of 10 nurses, soldiers or policemen every minute we are in the EU!
5.2 Congdon has done further analyses of the annual cost to the UK of being in the EU. In his reports “How much does the European Union cost Britain?” he quotes £150 billion/annum for 2011 in his 2012 report, £165 to £170 billion/annum for 2012 in his 2013 report, £185 billion/annum in his 2014 report and £190 billion/annum for the year 2014 in his 2015 report. Sadly, he stopped producing these reports after that.
5.3 The annual costs he estimated rose as a % of GDP from 10% in 2011, 11% in 2012 and 12% in 2014. So the annual cost of being in the EU was clearly rising much faster than our GDP.
5.4 Using Congdon’s figure of £190 billion/year for 2014 we can assume that the annual rate of increase for the cost of being in the EU is approximately £4.52 billion/year. Hence the total accumulated cost for the UK of being in the EU since 1973 to 2017 is calculated in APP 5.1 and this shows that the total accumulated annual cost of being in the EU from 1973 to 2017 could have currently cost the UK economy nearly £11 trillion.
NOTE: This is NOT being put forward as a definitive figure for the total cost. It is merely being added to indicate how much the UK economy could have suffered through being in the EU for 45 years due to EU over-regulation etc. All the elements that made up that cost are listed in Congdon’s reports.
5.5 Hence all those remainers who claim the UK economy will suffer when we leave the EU are clearly unaware of the potential cost of EU membership to our economy, are lying about it or are simply ignoring it.
FIGURE 5.1 VARIOUS ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES OF BEING IN THE EU
6 TOTAL COST OF UK PAYMENTS TO THE EU BUDGETS: £ 310.5 BILLION
6.1 Since the UK joined the EU in 1973 it had to make payments into the EU annual budget. The rates that various countries had to pay are fixed by the EU every few years.
6.2 The total NETT contributions to the EU budget are shown in APP 6.1 below. This table is extracted from HoC Briefing Paper, Number CBP 7886, 2 February 2018 10. It shows the Net UK budget contributions from 1973 to 2017 in annual cash payment terms.
6.3 App 6.2 below shows the same payments, but the final net budget payments are corrected to 2017 values by the HoC library.
6.4 APP 6.3 lists the HoC budgetary payments in cash terms, corrected to 2017 values using the University of Illinois web site measuringworth.com and the Hoc 2017 values for comparison purposes. The totals of 275,449 and 198,410 respectively for the totals show a marked difference of £77,039 million due to the method of correcting the results.
6.5 In order to check these values APP 6.4 shows the calculation of three results from the years 1973, 1985 and 2000 corrected to 2017 values using the Bank of England (BoE) average interest rates for the years from 1973 to 1974 extracted from the Guardian web site, Interest Rates in the UK from 1974 and from 1975 to 2017, extracted from the BoE web site Annual Average Bank rate IUAABEDR.
6.6 APP 6.4 shows that the 1973 net budgetary payment of £102 million in 1973 would be worth £2.813 billion in 2017 based on the interest rates from 1973 to 2017. The University of Illinois (UoI) figure is £2.538 billion and the HoC corrected figure, (see Table 3, APP 6.2) is just £1.038 billion.
Similarly for 1985, the actual cash payment of £1.808 billion is corrected to £10.356 billion, by the use of the interest rate method and to £8.68 billion by the UoI and only £4.379 by the HoC.
For the year 2000, the cash payment of £4.192 billion is corrected to £6.634 billion by the interest rate method, £7.483 billion by the UoI and £5.860 billion by the HoC.
6.7 It can be seen that the UoI figures are much closer to the actual values calculated by using the actual average annual interest rates than the HoC figures which are very much lower. Hence it can be assumed that the UoI calculations are reasonably reliable These calculations do show categorically the relatively high levels of UK budgetary payments to the EU over its 45-year membership.
6.8 Not included in these calculations are the interest charges accruing every year on the budget payments. These annual payments all had to be borrowed as there was always an annual deficit, (apart from a small return from the EU in 1975). Allowing a very modest annual interest rate of 2.5% from 1973 to 2017 increases the current total cost to the UK of its EU budgetary payments to over £285 billion. The current annual interest on this amount at 2.5% is £7.1 billion and this must still be paid for years after BREXIT until the UK’s national debt, currently well over £2 trillion, is paid off!
6.9 As we are looking at the total costs of being in the EU from 1973 to 2021 the annual nett budgetary figures from 1973 to 2021 are re-calculated to 2021 levels in Appendix 6.5. This shows that the total current cost of the UK’s budget payments to the EU from 1973 to2021 was £310,523 billion, or 13.7% of the UK’s current national debt of nearly £2.5 trillion.
APPENDIX 6.1 ANNUAL NET CONTRIBUTIONS TO EU BUDGETS
APPENDIX 6.2 UK NET CASH CONTRIBUTION TO EU BUDGET 1973 to 2017
APPENDIX 6.3 UK NET BUDGET PAYMENTS,1973 to 2017, USING UNIV OF ILLINOIS AND HoC CORRECTIONS TO 2017 VALUES (£ millions)
APPENDIX 6.4 UK BUDGET PAYMENTS COMPARISON USING BANK of ENGLAND AVERAGE ANNUAL INTEREST RATES
APPENDIX 6.5 UK BUDGET PAYMENTS 1973 to 2021 CORRECTED TO 2021 VALUES
Net Cont from
Net Cont 2017
U of Illinois
7 COST OF LOST FISHING RIGHTS £100 to £150 BILLION
The EEC produced at the last minute the infamous demand that UK territorial waters and its fisheries were an EEC “asset” to be administered by the EEC as a condition of entry.
Ted Heath swallowed this infamous demand virtually without a murmur, but even he was apparently apprehensive as to the large cost of the budgetary payments to the UK. To soften the blow and make it more publicly acceptable the EEC agreed to a 7year “softening up” period of the total annual cost of UK budgetary payments.
In addition, cabinet papers revealed that on the territorial waters issue that Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister said words to the effect that he was “not bothered about the livelihoods of a few Scottish fishermen” if that was the price of joining the EEC! Note that the loss of UK fishing rights to the EEC/EU was apparently estimated to be costing the UK economy £2/3 billion/annum. Hence the total cost to the UK of the loss of UK fishing rights is well over £100 to £150 billion.
8 CURRENT LIABILITY OF BEING IN THE EU UP TO £441+ BILLION
In the Executive Summary of his report, “Why the Eurozone’s fate makes an immediate exit vital” published by Global Britain, Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Ltd., states that:
“Three years after the UK voted to leave the European Union all we have on the table is a Withdrawal Agreement and a Political Declaration that fail to end the UK’s huge contingent liabilities to the EU’s financial institutions. We do not, for example, cease to be a shareholder in the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank for at least twenty years.
During the transition period the EU could cause the UK’s maximum contingent liability to rise from the current figure of €207 billion to €441 billion, or by even more if our exit is drawn out into the period of the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework.
Any payment the UK might make for our supposed residual liabilities will be spent immediately on other things: who will then meet those liabilities when they fall due for payment? This all derives from near-criminal irresponsibility by the UK’s negotiators.
For the UK the timing and terms of our withdrawal are vital: can we crystallise and then discharge our liabilities by leaving the EU completely and soon, or do we risk becoming a loss-sharing party as and when the Eurozone financial system goes off its cliff?
This will occur at the latest in 2021 when financial markets belatedly realise that compliance with the EU Fiscal Stability Treaty is unattainable: the Debt-to-GDP ratios of Italy, Belgium, France, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal are all above 95% and only Greece has a current budget surplus.
Compliance is impossible from both an economic and political point of view.”
EXTRA FUTURE COSTS ON RE-JOINING THE EU
9 SUPPORTING COST OF EU PENSIONS OF WELL OVER 30 TRILLION EUROS
9.1 There is a massive “hole” looming in the pension funding for the next generation of workers in many EU countries according to a study commissioned by the European Central Bank. The 18 EU countries in the report compiled by the Research Centre for Generational Contracts at Freiburg University in 2009 showed that the largest pension liabilities in per cent of GDP can be found in France (362.2), Poland (361.1) and Austria (359.9), followed by Germany (329.6) and Italy (323.1). The lowest liabilities have been calculated for Lithuania (179.9) and Latvia (124.8) followed by the United Kingdom (91.2) authors Christoph Mueller, Bernd Raffelhueschen and Olaf Weddige said in the report.
9.2 The UK had one of the lowest pension rates in the EU and the lowest pension liability of those examined at 91.2% of GDP. Despite this the UK pensionable age for men is likely to rise to 68 in a few years. What does that say about the pension prospects for countries like France, Poland, Austria and Germany with pension liabilities which are over 3 times their GDP?
9.3 Furthermore it should be noted that:
a) Only 18 EU countries were analysed in this report leaving the pension liabilities of the remainder unaccounted for.
b) All of the remaining EU countries are net beneficiaries from the EU budget c) At present there are about 4 people working for every pensioner in the UK. In the next 25 years or so this figure is expected to drop to two workers for every pensioner, thus doubling their commitment.
10 COSTS OF UK CONVERTING TO THE EURO £53 BILLION?
Tony Blair was very keen to adopt the euro when he was PM. In 2005 he said that it would probably be around 2010 before the economic conditions were right. Around that time, it was estimated that changing over to the euro as our main currency would cost, (from memory) the country about £32 billion. There have not been any recent calculations as to the cost of the change-over, even for Scotland, where Nichola Sturgeon is continually whingeing about joining the EU. However, even if there were no increased costs today in changing-over converting £32 billion in 2005 to 2021 values raises the current cost to £53 billion.
11 SUPPORTING THE COST OF BANKRUPT EU NATIONS
After years of cheap lending money many EU nations built up huge debts (as did the UK). There is no doubt that if the UK re-joined the EU, it would be drawn into supporting many EU nations with debts which they cannot repay. For example, the debt to GDP ratio of many EU countries in January 2022, Q1, was as follows:
1. Greece: 206.0
2. Italy: 156.0
3. Portugal: 134.0
4. Spain: 120.0
5. Cyprus: 118.0
6. France: 116.0
7. Belgium: 114.0
8. Croatia: 88.7
9. Austria: 83.9
10. Slovenia: 80.8
11. Hungary: 80.4
12. Germany: 69.8
13. Finland: 69.2
14. Slovakia: 60.6
15. Ireland: 59.5
A high debt-to-GDP ratio is undesirable for a country, as a higher ratio indicates a higher risk of default. In a study conducted by the World Bank, a ratio that exceeds 77% for an extended period of time may result in an adverse impact on economic growth. A study by the World Bank found that countries whose debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 77% for prolonged periods experience significant slowdowns in economic growth. Pointedly, every percentage point of debt above this level costs countries 0.017 percentage points in economic growth. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in emerging markets, where each additional percentage point of debt over 64% annually slows growth by 0.02%.
The UK’s debt in 2022 Q1 was 99.6% of GDP, which is high by accepted standards but a lot lower than many EU countries. However, the UK has never failed to repay its debts.
12 ADVANTAGES OF BEING IN THE EU
Clearly there are NO financial advantages to being in the EU as the costs involved are horrendous and there are definitely NO financial benefits to the UK’s citizens, householders and taxpayers.
However, as pointed out earlier, there are some financial benefits to the UK’s big businesses which trade with the EU. Due to being in the EU’s single market the UK could export goods to the EU with no tariffs. Again, this so called “advantage” was a big, big, disadvantage to UK taxpayers and consumers as the loss of income to the UK treasury was far greater due to the enormous negative trade gap in the UK’s trade with the EU. Thanks largely to the EU controlling all the UK’s trade. In addition, UK big business could employ armies of lobbyists to try and influence EU decisions in their favour. They could also better afford staff to ensure compliance with EU bureaucracy thereby denying smaller companies getting business for their products.
In addition, the freedom of movement within the EU, is often cited as a big advantage by EU fanatics in the UK. Unfortunately, this entails freedom of all the citizens of the EU coming to the UK as well. All 447 million of them! This includes all the criminal scum in Europe, who can come and live in the UK, be guaranteed housing, NHS facilities, schooling, benefits etc., etc., and were never in danger of being deported after being prosecuted and found guilty of their crimes in UK courts.
The usual arguments for staying in the EU are therefore pathetic and feeble. Such as, “I do not have to show my passport when travelling in Europe”, and “I can go and live in Europe”.
Also, Lord Adonis has said that being in the EU we can benefit from their laws. Does he not realise that there are 650 MP’s who are supposed to be making laws, for the UK, which benefit the UK? A process which he as a Member of the House of Lords is party to.
Even before the UK joined the EU it was made clear that the UK was going to be severely and wilfully penalised in order to favour the other EEC countries. Peter Shore, ex Labour Minister, pointed out in his book “Separate Way’s” their intentions. One would have thought that after all the enormous costs in bloodshed, destruction and finance that the UK and its Commonwealth suffered to save Europe from German and Nazi domination during two world wars, the EEC would at least ensure a fair system for the UK’s entry.
NOT ON YOUR LIFE!
The EEC changed the budget contribution procedure from that based on a % of GDP to a system based on taxes based on import duties. As Peter Shore pointed out this was clearly introduced to punish the UK as the UK imported far more of its food than the other, mainly agricultural EEC countries.
The EEC also produced at the last minute the infamous demand that UK territorial waters and its fisheries were an EEC “asset” to be administered by the EEC. A new imposition not planted on any other nation on joining, before or since. Hence the EEC/EU was determined to screw the UK for all they worth right from the start.
Therefore, WHY anybody thinks that being in the EU would be to the UK’s advantage proves how delusional they were, and still are, as history underlines the fact that the UK has been screwed by the EU at every opportunity. Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason they were assiduously assisted in this by every prime minister and many LibLabCon party politicians since before we joined and for as long as we were in the EU. However, a clue as to why they were so keen to remain and even re-join the EU could be found in the following reference.
Alan Skeds paper (See Ref 12.1 below) says that the Conservative Party under Heath became a secret corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe. The initial fee was £15,000, (equivalent to nearly half a million pounds today). According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchêne, the Labour and Liberal parties joined later.
So, it can be assumed that the LibLabCon parties have ALL been aiming to make the UK a vassal state of the United States of Europe for over 45 years and have allegedly been totally and secretly committed to:
• Abolishing the United Kingdom as a sovereign, democratic and independent country. • Abolishing of the monarchy as our Head of State.
• Abolishing Westminster, the “Mother of Parliaments” as the governing body of the UK. • Abolishing the right of UK citizens to “hire and fire” their government and therefore disenfranchising them.
• Abolishing the right of UK citizens to call themselves, English etc.
• Abolishing the UK armed forces and expecting the defence of the realm to be delegated to EU forces.
• Abolishing the UK’s membership of the Commonwealth
• Abolishing the UK’s right to formulate its own foreign and domestic policies. • Giving over 350 million foreigners the legal right to come and live in the UK with no controls whatsoever on how many chose to do so.
• Giving away vast amounts of UK taxpayers money to foreign agencies with little or no control over the amounts demanded.
• Giving away the UK’s territorial waters and fishing rights to the EU.
It is totally unforgiveable that Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister, 1970 to 1974, blatantly and deliberately lied to the UK public that joining the EEC would NOT involve any loss of sovereignty, when he had either ALREADY joined Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe or was just about to. This obviously involved a total loss of sovereignty if it was achieved, which was obviously his intention. I believe that every PM since then, including Blair, John Major, Theresa May, and many MP’s have allegedly been working towards the aim of abolishing our country as an independent sovereign and democratic nation by making the UK a vassal state of the EU. Significantly, attempts to discover whether or not the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties are still in the successor to Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe have failed as there was no response from the Cabinet Office to this question!
But none of the LibLabCon parties have ever mentioned any of the above aims in any of their manifestos in any general election before, or even during, the whole time we have been in the EU. Nor have any of their treasonous policies, listed above, ever been mentioned in any of the
Queen’s speeches on the opening of parliament. Incredibly, despite thousands of new MP’s being elected to Parliament since 1973, never has any one of them ever made it clear to the public the real alleged intention of their parties staying in the EU, i.e. to effectively disenfranchise the British public and destroy the UK as an independent, sovereign and democratic state and make the UK a vassal state of the United States of Europe. The story of the lies and deceit over the EU by the LibLabCon parties is detailed in Booker and North’s book, “The Great Deception” see Ref 12.2.
It is crystal clear that the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties not only publish pledges in their election manifestos which they fail to honour, they also more insidiously have allegedly NOT declared their secret mission to turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU.
Hence, all three parties have allegedly lied to and deceived the UK public for over 45 years with regard to making the UK a vassal state of the EU and so the question must be asked:
ARE THEY FIT FOR PURPOSE?
Ref 12.1 Global Britain published paper written by Prof Alan Sked titled “TIME FOR A CHANGE, British Conservatism and the politics of Brexit”
Ref 12.2 “The Great Deception” by Booker and North, published by continuum.
The current political party system is therefore totally corrupt and deceitful and must be swept away and replaced by a system where truth and honesty prevail.
The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We asked your views on: How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?
As a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK really has no choice but to follow The ECHR’s urgent interim measure and await its full judgement. I’m not sure if the UK can appeal the interim order in the meantime.
Whatever the outcome, the government should withdraw from The Convention and replace the existing UK Human Rights Act, which enshrines The Convention into British law, with an Act that provides the same protections as The Convention but with the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter. It should also commit to enshrine any future changes to The Convention into UK law, subject to there being no jurisdictions outside the UK courts.
Having served notice of its withdrawal from The Convention, the government should urgently consider ignoring any rulings of The ECHR and rely on the rulings of the UK Supreme Court on those matters.
Brexit campaigner Georgina Guillem.
The ECHR has stopped the first fight of Asylum Seekers to Rwanda. This of course should have been considered as all European institutions (EU or otherwise) will do all it can to thwart whatever the UK does to try to address this problem. Likewise, all the do-gooders that protest. There must be a solution to this ever-increasing problem of mostly young men arriving by boat without trying to be accepted through the right channels. Human Rights did not begin with the ECHR the UK has always had the reputation for setting high standards both domestically and internationally.
Not to honour a treaty once signed is wrong, however the safeguard of the UK must be considered, therefore it is also wrong not to put its wellbeing first. A true Brexiteer wanted to leave the EU, all the institutions of Europe and return full sovereignty without a deal, had we done this we might not have had all this agony. Also the Northern Ireland Mess might have been avoided.
I watched an interview on Sky TV with the Chief Executive of the Refugee Council. He said that the refugees have a human right to come to the UK and claim asylum here as the refugees in Palestine cannot walk into the British Embassy in Palestine to ask for asylum. Why did the interviewer on Sky not ask him why they did not walk into one of the British embassies in the many safe countries they crossed and ask for asylum there, France in particular?
I firmly believe that the UK should cancel its involvement in the ECHR as the UK is perfectly capable of defending the human rights of its own citizens. So why are we relying on foreign bodies to dictate our human rights policies for us.
The quicker we withdraw from many other European and EU treaties and rules the better!
Chris Scott stood for Reform UK in the Horley Central and South Ward of Reigate & Banstead Council, in May’s local elections.
I’m no lawyer, nor even a student, so my response will be based mainly on what I’ve gleaned from media interviews and discussions since the eleventh-hour ECHR ruling on the planned Home Office deportation flight to Kigali last week.
Although there was a lack of transparency by the ECHR on which judge, or judges were hurriedly called in to rule on deportations that had just been ruled legal by our own Supreme Court – the third English court to consider the appellants’ case – I guess it was unlikely that the Home Secretary would have been prepared to flout the decision on this occasion. I wonder, however, if the Home Office lawyers were expecting it and, if so, whether Miss Patel had been warned of the probability. Flouting international law is not something one would want or expect HMG to do in haste.
The UK was, evidently, the chief author of the original convention on human rights for Europe in the aftermath of the horrific events that were revealed during and after WW2. That we should have drafted it was right and proper. We had been the only European combatant to maintain our democratic freedoms during the war and had played a major part – initially single-handed, but for the stout help of our Empire countries – in saving Europe and much of the world from tyranny.
A court, also bearing the initials ECHR, was created. But, as I understand it, the convention’s original provisions have been extended and others added to the extent that the court seems even to have become a threat to national sovereignty. If a signatory country is prevented from deciding who can enter and, therefore, whom it can legally deport, it is no longer sovereign. Based in the same campus as the European parliament in Strasbourg, one suspects that the Court’s advocates may share similar aspirations to members of the Council of Europe and Eurocrats who, for reasons of their own, wish to lessen the autonomy of the EU’s nation states.
There is, therefore, a strong argument for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and to give precedence to a new bill of rights seven decades after we framed it. This would doubtless provoke wide international condemnation, much of it sneering and disingenuous, from countries that have in many cases come late to the table of human rights. After all, it started here in Blighty over eight centuries ago with Magna Carta. The UK should continue to hold its head high on human rights and perhaps take a new lead, as we did in 1950.
I have just finished re-reading Christopher Booker’s excellent book titled “The Real Global Warming Emergency”1. This book should be compulsory reading for all politicians and climate change fanatics as it describes from the IPCC’s first report, in 1990, to the Copenhagen conference, in 2009, some of the IPCC’s deceit, lies and manipulation, all aimed at promoting the fallacy that human beings are mainly responsible for catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)2. The number of professional scientists of international standing who have resigned from IPCC committees due to their adverse views being ignored or deliberately doctored in the final IPCC reports is confirmation of this.
In addition, the publicity of the lies and deceit by the IPCC resulting from the Mann “hockey stick” saga and the “climategate” emails from the discredited University of East Anglia should have also alerted everybody to the total AGW sham being perpetrated on the general public. Also, none of the doomsday predictions concerning AGW have been realised.
Despite all this evidence, the AGW sound bite that 97% of “experts” agree that global warming is mostly man made is still being repeatedly trotted out. This was based on a “review” of abstracts of 11,944 peer reviewed papers published over a 21 year period which supposedly endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW. The 11,944 papers were reviewed later by another group who established that only 0.3% of the papers reviewed actually endorsed man-made global warming as defined in the original review. This result was confirmed when 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 holding PhD’s, signed the Oregon Petition which disputed the notion of anthropogenic climate alarmism. Unfortunately, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out in 2013, a tweet claiming 97% of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” Apart from being disastrously untrue, the survey he was referring to didn’t even ask that question. So, why was the President of the most powerful nation in the world promulgating such falsehoods?
Sadly, even Prince Charles has been guilty of spreading false claims about AGW. In 2005, (17 years ago) he said climate change should be seen as the “greatest challenge to face man” and treated as a much bigger priority in Britain. He then claimed in a speech to business leaders that the world has only 100 months to act “before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible” That was in 2009, 13 years, (156 months) ago. So, why are we still getting snowfalls, cold winters and increasing ice growth in the Antarctic? Yet Prince Charles was still banging the AGW drum at the 2022 COP 26 conference in Glasgow. All this coming from a man who talks to his vegetables to help their growth! He should stop making stupid political statements as he is bringing himself and the Monarchy into disrepute.
It is also ludicrous to maintain that CO2 is bad for the planet. If it falls below about 150 ppm all plant life will die and all human existence with it. In fact, CO2 levels have in centuries past been 10 times higher than today and if anything, current CO2 levels need to be increased not diminished. Currently, CO2 comprises around 400ppm of the atmosphere, which has been increasing by around 1.5ppm pa for many years. Human emissions contribute around 3% of that annual increase & the UK only emits around 1% of that 3%, i.e., 0.00045ppm pa.
You will be aware that over time atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature – not the other way around – and that human CO2 emissions fell dramatically during Lockdown, while CO2 concentration went up. You should also know that increasing CO2 levels result in global greening, which absorbs CO2 – a feedback loop which doesn’t seem to be factored in IPCC models.
Apparently, the wholesale change-over from petrol and diesel engine cars to electrically powered vehicles (EV’s) is essential to achieve the UK’s target of bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. However, there are nearly 25 million dwellings in the UK 52% of which are terraced or semi-dets and 21% are flats. The RAC estimates that 18 million homes can utilise off-street parking to accommodate EV charging at home. How are the “other” 7 million households going to charge their EV’s? Has any thought at all been given to the trip hazard for the blind, disabled and elderly of live electric cables draped over the pavements, especially in wet weather?
Apparently, climate change zealots have allegedly said that all “climate deniers” should be prosecuted! I have some sympathy for that argument. However, it is the real climate deniers who should be prosecuted. They are, all those politicians, scientists, media outlets, (particularly the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian), weather forecasters and others who have prostituted their positions, training, careers and common sense to promote the seriously flawed and untrue philosophy of AGW. That is, they refuse to acknowledge that man made CO2 makes an imperceptibly small contribution to global warming. Dr Bruce C Bunker in his book “The Mythology of Global Warming”3 demolishes every claim made by the global warming zealots with facts and figures. He concludes that “the science of global warming is indeed settled”, that is;
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH
For the government to swallow all the fallacious hype on climate change, let alone establish government policy on it, is totally insane. The law to achieve net zero must be repealed at once. Even optimistic estimates of the cost of reaching net-zero by 2050 show that it will cost £250 billion4. The government’s action to reduce gas and coal consumption is therefore illogical and insane, as they are the cheapest forms of energy. Gas is abundantly available in the UK, so the UK must prioritise gas production, particularly by allowing UK companies to start fracking in earnest. Coal mines and coal fired power stations must also be prioritised together with nuclear power stations. But new nuclear stations will take some years to become more productive.
As a member of the public I have been able to satisfy myself that AGW is a total sham. The government, with all the resources at its disposal must also be very aware that AGW is a total sham. Yet they persist in promoting this fallacy and are intent on ruining the UK economy in the process for whatever reason known only to them. The UK has already suffered over 50 years of lies and deceit by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal/Lib Dem parties over the EU, so lies and deceit are their stock in trade. They have also lied and deceived us over the so-called global warming for at least 20 years and are intent on making this last at least for another 30 years and decades beyond that. Lying and deceit are these parties’ stock-in-trade. Therefore, they must NEVER be allowed to govern this country again. They are imposing a flawed strategy and an enormous burden on the sovereign people, without their consent and they must be held accountable for that.
“The Real Global Warming Crisis” by Christopher Booker. Quantum Books
“Inconvenient Facts”, By Gregory Wrightstone, Silver Crown Productions, LLC.
“The Mythology of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts by Dr Bruce C. Bunker, PhD, Moonshine Cove Publishing, LLC.
“Paying for Net Zero”, by Tom Sasse, Institute for Government.
Reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is enshrined in UK Law. With COP26 in Glasgow the news is full of stories about Climate Change and Global Warming. With all the main parties in agreement on the policy we have recently seen calls for the people of Britain to have a choice via a referendum on Net Zero. Nigel Farage has hinted he could campaign, articles have appeared in the Spectator, and Gaia Fawkes sums the position up brilliantly when they say:
“Politicians seem very keen to avoid a Net Zero Referendum. It’s a project without democratic legitimacy. Let the politicians who want us to eat bugs, have cold showers, lukewarm heat pumped houses, higher energy bills and far more expensive foreign holidays, make their case!”
As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.
Thanks to Peter Sonnex, Jeremy Wraith, Dr Tom Rogers, and Scott Neville for their responses.
Peter Sonnex, former Brexit Party candidate and political campaigner.
Is global warming a threat?
Global warming may be a threat to the planet, if only we knew! That the climate has always been in flux is true – so what is the ideal status quo or permanent reversal we are trying to engineer? And, at what cost, if our UK 1% contribution may amount to £1 Trillion to mitigate?
Climate and Covid catastrophists are one and the same – doing stuff just in case, if it saves just one ounce of carbon or one life. And, we know the government can’t do cost benefit analysis.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
Referenda are only offered when the establishment believes it can win. The Brexit result confirmed both arrogance and a lack of connection to the electorate. Neither the government, nor the opposition, will risk a climate referendum.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Firstly, we must allow the developing world their industrial revolution. The world, where energy poverty is no longer a significant factor, will be in a better position to adapt to ever changing climactic conditions – perhaps even influence the most extreme effects.
Secondly, I think we should be pursuing nuclear power – capital plants, small modular nuclear reactors and fusion – with more vigour and investment. We should be emulating the example of our sun, not trying to fight against it.
With nuclear power comes the energy to desalinate and move water, ending the reality of water poverty and potential conflict. Hydrogen through electrolysis becomes entirely viable. Hydrogen can be stored, and with fossil fuels provide stored, potential energy and, therefore, energy security.
The CPA affirms that we have a duty to be the best possible custodians of God’s creation — our planet and its natural resources. We therefore have a developed programme of policies for greening the economy and transport, which you can find in our 2019 Manifesto (www.cpaparty.net).
Our approach to ‘climate change’ is a sensible and cautionary one. We have to be very careful about being panicked or coerced into measures that in themselves would be catastrophic to our industries, economy and human freedoms in response to alarmist claims of a ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate extinction’. Contrary to the establishment narrative that ‘the science is settled’ (in itself an unscientific statement) the extent to which recent changes in temperatures are unnatural, dangerous to our survival and/or caused by human activity are questions still contested by many scientists, and which require much more open scientific freedom, investigation and debate than is currently being allowed. The earth’s climate after all has never been something static but has always been constantly changing and evolving in the absence of human presence or attempted control.
We would therefore implement effective but proportionate policies best in themselves for the environment and long-term provision for humanity, and not just because they reduce carbon omissions. It is right that we seek to eliminate pollution, continuously improve energy efficiency, increase recycling, and strive to further the use of renewable sources of energy, and we have detailed policies in all these areas which we would support also at a local level.
Potentially, it depends on how far it goes and I don’t believe we have sufficiently accurate data to know for sure. The important thing to consider is the word “threat”, is any of this a threat to the planet, no, the planet will be fine regardless. If the planet was going to boil away with a self-reinforcing loop of heating it would have done so millions of years ago. However any change is always a threat to some people (and potentially a benefit to others), so yes global warming or global cooling does pose a threat to some of humanity regardless how big or small. There could however be a big threat to humanity, I personally don’t believe all the doomsday predictions, but I accept I might be wrong, and I accept totalitarian government is a very big threat too.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
I am unsure. I don’t believe in enforcing many things is just, because the use of force against another is wrong, holding a referendum does not suddenly make me believe this is ok (as many found the presence of an EU referendum does not make their belief in themselves less European). I simply don’t agree with a tyranny of majority. Any referendum would be fought on religious grounds (the fastest growing religion of “the science”) and that will just lead to far more anger and fighting with everyone becoming more ideologically entrenched rather than trying to examine empirical fact and critically assess information presented.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Waste is by far the biggest problem, filling up our landscapes with all this scrap, use once and throw away plastics. The debate is so skewed it’s all about paper vs plastic straws rather than “why do most people even need a straw?” or make sure that you put your plastic bottles in the correct bin rather than “you will be going back to the supermarket at some point, the lorry that delivers to the supermarket will go back to the factory, just take the damn bottles back and refill them”. Energy production needs to focus on nuclear, particularly research in nuclear fusion where the UK is already a world leader, bizarrely we don’t say much about our achievements despite our achievement in making Didcot the hottest place in the solar system (briefly) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/didcot-was-hottest-place-in-solar-system-gj9wg258f.
You can read more about Scott and the Hampshire Independents in his interview with us, or listen to him one of our recent Podcasts.
This is the first set of your responses, further responses can be found in Part 2
The coronavirus pandemic has severely damaged the UK economy. However, this is also happening in every country in the world. This makes a fantastic opportunity for UK businesses to expand and export with the right encouragement from the government.
The most important factor in the UK recovery is to cancel the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) NOW and eliminate ALL aspects of EU control over the UK forthwith.
The UK does NOT need a trade “deal” with the EU. This will not only inhibit future trade with the EU but more importantly, UK trade with the rest of the world (ROW).
The UK government must invest in UK businesses, large and small, which have an export potential so that export opportunities can be grasped. This will cost a lot of money and suggestions are made to reduce UK waste and spending. In addition, the UK must develop and produce more products at home so that it does not rely so heavily on overseas supply chains.
4 UK Business
4.1 Cut UK corporation tax by 50%.
4.2 Cut business rates by 50%.
4.3 Stop all foreign (i.e. EU) fishing in UK waters and develop UK fishing industry.
4.4 Produce Fisheries Protection and Border Force vessels in UK shipyards.
4.5 Expedite Free Ports.
4.6 Expand UK armaments products.
4.7 Develop UK agriculture.
4.8 Education. Expand technical schools and colleges.
5 Paying for UK investment
5.1 Cancel the Withdrawal Agreement NOW.
5.2 Reform the House of Lords (HoL)
5.3 Scrap the BBC Licence fee.
5.4 Scrap VAT.
5.5 Cancel HS2 now.
5.6 Scrap global warming legislation and associated costs.
5.7 Actively develop fracking by UK companies
5.8 Reduce foreign aid. Use foreign aid money to develop and produce UK products which can be sent to and used by poorer countries.
5.9 Anyone, apart from a few exceptions, paid from any form of public funds to have a salary cap of £100,000.
6 Civil servants
Introduce a scheme to enable taxpayers and council taxpayers to dismiss civil servants and council employees.
Cull vast numbers of quangos. Restore responsibility to Ministry and Ministers where it belongs.
All illegal immigration to be stopped IMMEDEATELY.
Railways and utilities to be nationalised. Royal Mail monopoly to deliver mail and parcels to be restored.
Multi nationals to be effectively taxed on their UK earnings.
Suggestions to re-invigorate the UK economy
The coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdowns has created financial, social and political crises in the UK where many companies are being forced to close down or dismiss staff. Hence, as the UK economy, which has also been in virtual lockdown, struggles to revive there will be a severe shortage of jobs, goods and facilities which people have come to expect.
However, this is also happening in most countries in the world as the pandemic is a worldwide problem. For example, nearly 33 million Americans were getting jobless benefits as of June 20, this year, about five times the peak during the Great Recession. This is a golden opportunity for UK businesses to expand and export goods and services around the world. Something which has been severely hampered over the last 50 years or so due to our membership of the EU.
It is an inescapable fact that when the UK joined the EEC in 1973 we had an approximately zero balance of trade, (BoT) with the EEC, i.e. we exported as much to the then EEC as we imported from them. On joining the EEC the UK’s trade, was brought under the direct control of the EEC/EU, (as were many other aspects of the UK economy) and has been ever since. As a result, the UK since 1973, has built up a staggering BoT deficit with the EEC/EU, currently costing us over £2 trillion. In fact, the UK, has not made a surplus in the trade of goods with the EU since the early 1980’s. This, despite the fact that the UK started the industrial revolution!
Hence, NOW is the time to re-vitalise the UK economy and regain our manufacturing and exporting base while the rest of the world is struggling to recover from the adverse economic effects of the pandemic. This is only possible with BREXIT looming and the UK supposedly gaining its complete independence from the EU’s stifling and grasping clutches. Some suggestions are made below to help the UK re-gain its former place as a world leading exporting nation.
The foremost and most obvious start is to accomplish a meaningful BREXIT is to break completely free of any and all EU influence over our sovereignty and economy. The single example given above illustrates quite comprehensively the effect of the EU’s involvement in our economy. They have one aim and that is to make the UK pay through the nose to their advantage. See also my note;
The UK must abolish the Withdrawal Agreement and stop trying to agree a trade deal with the EU. At present the EU is insisting that we “leave” the EU on its terms only, i.e. with demands for the continuation of fishing rights and level playing fields etc. These demands are totally unacceptable for a sovereign, independent country that the UK aspires to be.
The question must be asked as to WHY do we need a “Withdrawal Agreement” at all? We are leaving the EU and that is surely a simple fact of life. The attempts to make a trade deal as part of leaving simply clouds the issue and is not necessary as discussed below.
In 2019 the USA exported $336.6 billion worth of goods to the EU and imported $515.2 billion worth of goods from the EU. The USA and many of the EU’s other trading partners do not have a trade deal with the EU. All this trade is carried out on WTO rules.
In 2019 the UK exports to the EU amounted to £300 billion, but imports from the EU were £372 billion.
There is no reason to suppose that our trade with the EU will drop significantly after Brexit using WTO rules. Apart, that is from the EU’s insistence that we comply with their rules and regulations. They have even been threatening to deny the UK access to their single market and to deny the UK’s service sector from access as well. The EU cannot get over losing its ability to screw the UK unmercifully as it has done ever since we joined in 1973. See my note in the link above.
The UK says that it would like a “Canada Style” trade deal with the EU. However, we must beware of ANY deal with the EU as Canada has found, see last para of the note in the link above!
The facts are that:
THE UK DOES NOT NEED A TRADE “DEAL” WITH THE EU TO TRADE WITH THE EU!
THE UK DOES NOT WANT A TRADE “DEAL” WITH THE EU TO TRADE WITH THE EU!
This will avoid paying the EU £39 billion for the privilege of making a trade deal with the EU on their terms and which severely penalises the UK’s ability to export to them AND the rest of the world! In order to capitalise on the huge world wide opportunities post Brexit the UK must invest in and promote and expand its manufacturing and service industries now! This takes money and some suggestions are given below on how this could be done.
4 UK BUSINESS
After Brexit the following actions should be done:
4.1 Cut Corporation Tax by 50%.
This should encourage large companies to stay in the UK, keep British workers in jobs and export from the UK. It will also help companies to improve their operating procedures and invest in new products.
4.2 Cut Business Rates by 50%
At the start of 2019 there were nearly 5.9 million small businesses, approximately 99.9% of the business population. They employed 16.6 million people, 60% of the work force, with a turnover of £2.2 trillion.
SME’s are vital to the UK economy and must be encouraged. Ways of doing this are discussed below.
NB Neither of the above would be possible under the EU’s demand for a “level playing field”.
4.3 UK Trade Commissioners
Every UK Embassy and High Commission must have a Trade Commissioner whose sole role is to promote UK exports. Their performance can be measured and where this is not satisfactory they must be replaced.
It must be remembered that UK paid the EEC/EU to take over UK territorial waters as an EU asset by Ted Heath when we joined the EEC in 1973. Since then the UK fishing fleet has been decimated and the loss of UK fishing rights in UK territorial waters must have cost our economy a total of over £100 billion.
The UK must therefore prevent any foreign fishing in UK territorial waters to enable the UK fishing industry to recover to its pre-EU levels. Once the UK fishing industry has recovered that will be the time to negotiate contracts for foreign fishing fleets to operate in UK waters, subject to strictly enforced quotas. This may take a few years to accomplish.
If, in the meantime, the EU carries out its vindictive threat to prevent fish imports from the UK then the markets in the ROW must be exploited. UK Trade Commissioners (see above) should assist in this activity.
4.5 Fisheries Protection and Border Force vessels.
UK shipyards must be used to expand our fleet of fisheries protection and border force vessels. These must be armed and capable of carrying Royal Marines for the need to inspect foreign vessels and their catches. This is an urgent need of the highest priority and until more new vessels are produced other vessels must be acquired and converted as necessary.
4.6 Free ports
The introduction of free ports must be expedited as this would be helpful to UK businesses.
4.7 Develop UK Agriculture
The UK must invest more in UK agriculture to limit food imports. In future, more imports should come from third world countries to help them develop.
Develop technical schools and colleges. Abolish Tony Blairs ridiculous aim to send 50% of school leavers to university.
Train more UK doctors and nurses and abolish tuition fees at universities for much needed UK science, engineering, medical and technology students. Ensure foreign students pay their tuition fees at the start of each academic year or be denied access.
5 PAYING FOR UK INVESTMENT
Encouraging UK businesses, cutting their costs and taxes will cost the government, and the taxpayers a lot of money. The government is already heavily in debt due to its necessary help to companies due to the coronavirus pandemic.
However, there are a number of ways that more money can be generated for UK investment in businesses and jobs as follows.
5.1 The Withdrawal Agreement (WA).
This must be cancelled forthwith. We must stop negotiating with the EU for a trade agreement. The EU has demonstrated time and time again that it is an avaricious, spiteful, and mean entity which loathes Britain. This, despite all the money,(£300+ billion) that the UK has contributed to EU budgets since we joined. Most EU countries have, by contrast, contributed NOTHING as they have been net beneficiaries for their total membership.
The UK must leave the EU and trade with them on WTO terms. This will limit their ability to limit the UK’s access to their markets. Something they continually threaten to do. This is something that they could and would do as part of the WA which was initially negotiated (i.e. allegedly “accepted”) by Theresa May. The Centre for Brexit Policy has apparently calculated that the WA would cost the UK £165 billion. We must prosecute Theresa May, Ollie Robbins and all their staff for alleged treason to show we mean business.
5.2 Reform the House of Lords (HoL)
The HoL is currently not fit for purpose and never has been (with a few notable exceptions) since the introduction of Life Peers. All 700+ of them must be abolished forthwith and the HoL reformed to consist of non-party members who should act as an independent checker on the House of Commons (HoC). This should save UK taxpayers about £20 million/annum.
See my note:
NB It is inconceivable that the Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem parties will accept reforming the HoL. After all, it is a haven for them to join after they retire and a means to reward their cronies, paymasters and to bribe prominent and influential people to agree to their policies and give their parties large funds. In the HoL they can get over £300/day of taxpayer’s money simply by signing in. Not to mention the taxpayer subsidised meals and vintage champagne!
5.3 BBC Licence Fee
This must be abolished by the end of this year saving all households from legally having to pay £157/annum to the BBC so they can watch ITV, Sky and other channels. The BBC has allegedly been promoting the EU since 1972 when Ted Heath and the Conservative government got them to allegedly support the UK’s entry into the EEC. Those people who support the BBC and its alleged anti-UK bilious propaganda can pay for it by subscription.
VAT is an EU imposed tax. Abolishing it will save SME’s a considerable headache in their accounting procedures. The taxpayers will save on the extra costs involved as these hit the lowest paid the hardest. Dismissing all the civil servants involved in its collection and administration will also benefit all taxpayers.
We already have an efficient tax collecting system in the HMRC. Loss of VAT income will be partly offset by savings in civil service pay and pensions for collecting it. Abolishing the VAT income can be compensated by increased taxation. This will shift the burden from the poorest people onto those more able to pay.
Must be cancelled forthwith. This is again an EU imposed liability which will not benefit the vast majority of UK taxpayers one iota. Scrap it NOW!
5.6 Global Warming
This is another burden on the UK taxpayer. The vast costs involved must be re-assessed and cancelled. Apart from being an almighty scam the UK contributes a vastly unimportant 1% of the worlds output of CO2. The commitment by Theresa May to make the UK carbon free by 2050 is monumentally stupid and must be repealed at the first opportunity.
There is no doubt that man made global warming is a monumental scam. Firstly, look at the relative size of the earth compared to the sun!
Can anyone really believe that man can have more influence on the suns effect on earths atmospheric temperature than the sun has?
Secondly, it has recently been proved that the Mediterranean Sea was 3.6 ˚/F hotter during the Roman Empire than it is today. No doubt the climate change bigots will claim it was due to the Romans excessive use of coal fired power stations and drag races along the Appian Way in their Ferraris and Alfa Romeos!
5.6.1 The use of more wind farms must be halted. They are inefficient and ways of abolishing subsidising their cost of generating electricity must be investigated and implemented. (Apparently, they are compensated during shut downs due to high winds. Can you imagine the mentality of government officials agreeing contracts for the supply of electricity with provision for compensation payment when they cannot produce the goods?)
5.6.2 Coal powered generating stations are relatively cheap and reliable. The UK coal industry must be revived as much as possible as this is a UK asset.
5.6.3 The development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s) by Rolls Royce must be highly encouraged and implemented in the UK and for export.
5.6.4 The impossible law to make the UK net carbon free by 2050, introduced by Theresa May, must be repealed immediately.
5.6.5 The UK’s reliance on foreign firms to provide our electricity is a disgraceful indictment of our politicians. Years ago the UK was a world leader in nuclear power generation. Now the UK is dependent on foreign providers for our nuclear power stations. This is totally unacceptable. Some years ago Nicholas Sarkozy, then Premier of France, said that he did not want French consumers to pay more for their electricity bills. So, EDF allegedly added 10% to their UK customers instead!
Fracking must be developed as fast as possible. This will provide cheap fuel for UK industry and it is a valuable UK asset.
5.8 Foreign Aid
The ridiculous legal commitment to give away 0.7% of our gross national income in foreign aid must be reformed immediately. For example, we continually see adverts on TV showing people having to spend hours each day collecting water. Part of the foreign aid budget should be invested in British industry and the products, such as water pipes, taps etc., given to poorer countries to improve their conditions. The farce of giving taxpayers money to richer countries like China and India is ludicrous. The Civil servants involved should be dismissed for incompetence!
In addition, the UK is one of only 6 countries that actually complies with the UN requirement. Repeal the law now and reduce our payments.
The remainder of the annual foreign aid budget should be invested in re-paying our enormous government debt. This can be drawn out in the event of natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes etc. In these events ALL commonwealth countries should be helped as necessary. The interest saved on these debt payments will help reduce the governments annual deficit.
The government should bring in a law making it illegal for anyone being paid from public funds being paid more than £100,000/year. Examples are:
5.9.1 50,137 NHS staff on £100,000 or more. Tax Payers Alliance (TPA)
5.9.2 The TaxPayers’ Alliance Town Hall Rich List identified at least 2,314 council employees in England and Wales with total remuneration deals of £100,000 a year or more in 2015-16.
The councils are making mugs of their council tax payers.
5.9.3 The BBC pays just 14 presenters a total of £11,715,000. Equivalent to over 7,500 licence fees.
The BBC is making mugs of their licence fee payers.
(NB The BBC has been found to be breaking its obligation to be impartial under the law and its Royal Charter on numerous occasions. This is allegedly especially true of its promotion of the EU since 1972. Hence, BBC personnel, including its governors, must all be prosecuted for allegedly fraudulently misusing license fee money, extorted from the British public, under the ultimate threat of imprisonment.)
5.9.4 Judicial salaries are eye watering. Just 4 members in grade 1.1 are paid a total of nearly £1 million. This includes the president of the supreme court which proved to be politically involved in denying the government the right to prorogue parliament. The Supreme Court must be abolished.
6 Civil Servants
It is a catastrophic failure of our society that enables us to hire and fire politicians every so often but prevents us having any control whatsoever over civil servants and council employees.
Sir Mark Sedwill is a good example. Formerly a diplomat he was apparently a trusted adviser to Theresa May when she was Prime Minister. In his top position which included being Cabinet Secretary, he was paid a salary of £205,000 and incurred expenses of £175,000 in just one year. When he stepped down he was awarded a payout of £238,000. WHY? This is totally unacceptable.
UK taxpayers paid his salary, his payout and his pension. We, taxpayers are his employers, yet we have absolutely NO input into his salary, payout or pension. This is not right and there should be a system whereby civil servants can be sacked by public demand where there is evidence of incompetence or wrong doing. For example, failures by public servants should be investigated, by an independent tribunal, the facts published and voted on by taxpayers. They should have a say in the civil servants continued employment and their pension rights. In the case of civil servants 100,000 signatories would be required to dismiss a civil servant for incompetence. This could be overturned by say 200,000 signatories. More are required as they will be committing others to carry on paying for the civil servant involved.
In the case of council employees the numbers would need to be reduced to say, 25,000 and 50,000 respectively.
The advantage of this sort of system is that civil servants and council employees would be continually reminded that they are our servants and NOT our masters!
7.1 There must be a positive and effective wholesale cull of quangos. Why is it necessary to have a quango when we have a government department and a minister responsible for that function? Quangos are simply a device to divert blame for gross errors of management from ministers and ministries to external bodies!
7.2 The NHS is a good example. There are numerous health quangos tied up in Public Health England, (PHE). Its performance in dealing with this pandemic has been abysmal and yet the government is often blamed for the failures in providing PPE and ventilators etc.
7.3 PHE, which cost taxpayers £15 billion last year, once abolished its functions should be returned to where they belong. In the appropriate government ministries where taxpayers have the right to hire and fire politicians and where they should have the right to fire incompetent civil servants.
7.4 The use of agencies such as Serco, who have been contracted to spend £billions on housing immigrants stinks. Serco has a board of directors and shareholders who are all being financed by taxpayers. Their work should firstly be eliminated by completely stopping illegal immigration and limiting benefits to immigrants generally. This should all be carried out by civil servants whose bosses pay is limited to less than £100,000/annum.
7.5 Councils should be made to carry out public services by council employees. It is again ridiculous that private companies are contracted to do the work of rubbish collections and so on at a profit. If councils fail to carry out the services properly and at a viable cost then the residents should have the opportunity of sacking incompetent council officials.
ALL illegal immigration must be stopped, and illegal immigrants deported whenever possible. It is ludicrous to keep accepting boat loads of people from across the channel, keeping them here, paying for their welfare etc. This is especially true now that an immigration points system is being started on Jan 1st 2021. All boat people from then on are thereby bucking the system, but we should start stopping them now! It is insane that we apparently have about 48,000 illegal immigrants many of whom are housed in 4 star hotels, costing UK taxpayers £2 to £4 billion/year. (Reported by Nigel Farage)
Regrettably, the PM’s offer to accept 3 million BNO holders from Hong Kong is probably not tenable at this time. Where are they going to be housed, their children schooled and so on? Potential BNO immigrants should be subject to the points system as for everyone else.
The government should nationalise certain industries, many of which have been taken over by EU companies as part of the EU’s “more competition” policy for taking over British industry.
The list of companies to be nationalised are as follows:
9.1.1 The railways. Network Rails debt from government borrowing is already well over £50 billion. Nationalising the whole rail network would facilitate nationwide improvements in rolling stock and improving freight. In future, all railway manufacturing and servicing must be carried out by British companies using British steel and resources.
9.1.2 Network rail has 45 managers with annual salaries ranging from £142,000 to £250,000 yet the company owes the UK taxpayers over £50 billion!
9.2 Water is a free natural resource and is getting into short supply due to population increases. It is intolerable that consumers are having to pay for large profits to water companies some of which are based overseas.
9.3 Electricity supply should be nationalised. We have a national grid and should have a national supplier. Electricity supply charges can then be reduced nationally. This will assist household consumers and businesses as well. This will help to reduce their costs and making their products cheaper and more attractive worldwide.
9.4 Gas supply should be nationalised as for electrical supplies above.
9.5 Royal Mail’s monopoly to deliver mail must be returned. This was opened to foreign, (EU) competition, as part of the EU’s campaign to provide more competition and take over British industry.
It is obscene that multinationals such as Amazon, Google, Facebook etc., can apparently avoid paying tax in the UK by, for example, transferring funds to subsidiary companies abroad. The UK taxpayers are therefore losing £billions annually as a result.
All companies therefore must be made to pay a tax in the UK on money that is made on their business in the UK. This can be done by making it compulsory to pay a tax based on the higher of their total earnings or their profits.
11 Capital Punishment
The government should hold a referendum on re-introducing Capital Punishment for murder especially where DNA evidence has made the identification of murder suspects indisputable It is ridiculous that we spend a fortune jailing terrorists and other criminals who murder police officers etc. and then release them onto the streets after a few years.
We asked for feedback and proposals on what should happen with the House of Lords following an article by Crispin Williams on the subject. Jeremy Wraith duly obliged.
Opinion Piece by Jeremy Wraith
The three main political parties all claim to represent and help the lowest paid members of our society. The Trussell Trust reports that there are 14 million living in poverty, and 1,200 food bank centres had to provide 16 million food supplies last year. Compare this to the decadent institution which is the House of Lords (HoL).
The HoL is clearly in urgent need of reform. Life Peerages are awarded willy nilly to cronies and failed politicians by their political friends and colleagues. It is therefore inconceivable that politicians will reform a system where they, their cronies, failed and retired politicians can spend the rest of their lives in a priveliged institution where they can rob the taxpayers daily of £305 plus expenses and subsidised meals, including vintage champagne.
In addition, the HoL is supposed to act as an advisor to parliament and is claimed to be needed to prevent bad laws being passed by parliament. However, the HoL is clearly and obviously a travesty, as the government can appoint as many life peers as it wants to support their policies. Witness the accusations that the Conservatives allegedly offered life peerages to Brexit Party candidates not to stand against them in last year’s general election. In addition, Tony Blair, when he was PM was allegedly accused of selling life peerages to bolster Labour Party funds. Hence the party in power and politicians generally must be prohibited from appointing life peers and for awarding honours.
Currently, the HoL consists of 92 hereditary Peers and 734 Life Peers. They can attend the HoL on about 150 days/annum. Hence the total annual cost of the HoL in pay alone could be £38 million. Of this about half is probably a good working figure, say £20 million. The restaurant bill for the HoL is currently £60,000/week or nearly £2 million/annum. Hence, proposals for reform are as follows:
2.1 Abolish ALL current life peerages immediately. This leaves the current 92 hereditary peers.
2.2 groups of public institutions, as follows, to then appoint 10 new life peers each:
The Institute of Directors/Business interests/SME’s
The NHS/Medical profession
The emergency services police/fire brigade/coast guard
Armed forces, navy/army/air force
Professional institutions such as RaeSoc, IMechE, RINA etc
Transport groups MN/ALPA/Haulage Associations
NB Politicians of all parties, civil servants, local councillors, council employees, the judiciary and anyone in the media, i.e. newspapers, TV and religious groups etc.,
will all be specifically banned from becoming members of the HoL.
2.3 This means that the HoL would consist of only just over 200 members. This would cut the attendance cost from about £20 million to around £5 million saving £15 million. It should also cut the restaurant bill from £2 million to about £0.5 million. So the annual savings in attendance and meals should be nearly £16 million/annum
In addition, the above approach has many distinct advantages as follows:
2.4 It virtually eliminates political bias, cronyism and favouritism.
2.5 Because the emphasis will be on senior personnel being appointed it increases widely the experience and knowledge base in the HoL for making decisions.
2.6 It cuts the actual cost of maintaining the HoL by about 75%.
2.7 It obviates the need and cost of public elections.
2.8 It should more fairly represent a wider spread of the population and different careers.
2.9 By specifically banning those involved in law making on a national and local level it helps to significantly reduce the possibility of cronyism, bribery and corruption.
2.10 In future all awards must be made by the HoL, again to eliminate cronyism, bribery and corruption.
An article in the Nursing Times, by Matt Bodell dated 16th August 2019, states that student nurses currently graduate with a debt of £54K. Newly qualified nurses are paid £24,214/annum. So, cutting over 730 current life peers who are probably seen by most of the population as vintage champagne swigging, part time, self serving, avaricious spongers and replacing them with 100 or so more dedicated life peers nominated by professional institutions would result in a momentous change in usefulness of the HoL. The money saved, rather than being used by life peers, generally seen as vintage champagne swigging leeches, could be used to improve the lot of student nurses and the many millions now living in poverty in the UK. Surely, there is no contest in this proposal!
In addition, the HoL should then be able to operate in the manner intended, i.e. as an independent assessor of government laws, and not be subject to the votes of hundreds of life peers supporting the policies of political parties that appointed them.
“Post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared on Sunday.”
The corollary to this statement by Merkel is that:
Inside the EU the UK is NOT a competitor to other states in the EU!
Because while Britain is/was in the EU the EU could screw Britain to such an extent in their favour, particularly France and Germany, that Britain would not be a potential threat to their economies.
1 When Britain joined the EEC in 1973 the EU took over complete control of Britain’s trade.
2 Since joining the EEC in 1973 Britain has NOT made a surplus on its trade in goods with the EU since the early 1980’s.
3 Hence, it only took the EU seven or so years to destroy Britain’s manufacturing base.
4 The proof of this is in the official figures as follows:
4.1 When Britain joined the EEC in 1973 the balance of payments (BoP) with the EEC was approximately zero.
4.2 This meant that Britain exported as much to the EEC as it imported from the EEC.
4.3 Since 1973, while under the control of the EU, the total accumulated BoP of UK trade with the EU has reached a staggering DEFICIT, currently costing Britain £2 trillion. But the EU has not only screwed Britain in trade. It has also screwed Britain financially to their benefit in many other ways, such as:
4.4 Even before Britain joined the EEC in 1973, they altered the budget subscription system from a percentage of each countries GDP to a system based on each countries imports.
4.4.1 This cost Britain so much extra that even Ted Heath, was so apprehensive about the cost involved that the EEC agreed to taper in the costs over 7 years, to make them less conspicuous and more acceptable!
4.5 In addition, when Maggie Thatcher handbagged the EU over the UK’s high VAT payments to the EU they agreed a rebate on Britain’s VAT contributions.
4.5.1 This rebate was not 5% or even 10%. NO, the rebate was a staggering 66%.
4.5.2 This meant that the EU was charging Britain,
THREE TIMES AS MUCH VAT AS WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
4.6 The TOTAL cost to Britain in NETT budgetary payments to the EEC/EU since 1973 now amounts to nearly £300 billion.
4.6.1 This amount of taxpayer’s cash has now been lost forever.
4.6.2 The £300 billion all had to be borrowed over the years and must be costing a large amount in interest fees all adding to the national debt of nearly £2 trillion.
4.6.3 At only 2% interest the current interest on the borrowed £300 billion must be costing Britain at least £6 billion/annum.
4.6.4 This must be added to the current NETT budgetary payment of about £12 billion making a total of £18 billion/annum.
4.6.5 The annual cost of this interest payment is never mentioned by the pro-EU side.
4.7 Since 1973 Britain’s fishing rights in our territorial waters has been governed by the EU.
4.7.1 The EU has therefore plundered our fish for nearly 50 years, with Britain getting the thin edge of the wedge in EU fishing quotas under the Common Fishing Policy (CFP).
4.7.2 This loss of fishing rights has cost Britain about £2 billion/annum in lost trade.
4.7.3 Hence the EU has already benefited by about £100 billion because of the CFP.
4.7.4 Despite this, the EU is still DEMANDING fishing rights in British territorial waters post BREXIT as a condition of starting trade talks.
4.8 Despite the £300 billion that Britain has so far contributed to EU funds the EU is DEMANDING that Britain pay them a bribe of £39 billion before they will even start talks on UK/EU trade. (REMEMBER the EU has built up a BoT surplus with Britain currently costing us about £2 trillion!)
4.9 The current trade deal with the EU’s single market means that EU imports do not attract import duties into the UK.
4.9.1 Hence, the UK taxpayer has lost a considerable amount from the larger EU exports to the UK.
4.9.2 British exporters to the EU would also have to pay EU import duties to the EU on their exports. However, the fact remains that British taxpayers have probably, since 1973, lost well over the equivalent of £20 billion in duties just on the £2 trillion difference in EU imports to Britain over British exports to the EU.
5 In spite of all the contributions made by Britain to the EU since we joined, the EU is apparently insisting on giving Britain worse trading conditions than they recently gave to Canada and Japan.
5.1 No doubt they did not insist that Canada and Japan paid them the equivalent of £39 billion before they started trade talks.
5.2 The EU probably did not demand that Canadian and Japanese citizens living in the EU were guaranteed rights of residence, as they have for EU citizens living in the UK.
5.3 Or the free movement of people.
5.4 Or demands for “level playing fields” to try and prevent them, like Britain, competing with their industries.
5.5 Or threats to ban or inhibit their financial services from operating in the EU like they have for Switzerland and the UK if they do not comply with EU demands.
5.6 The EU has thus ably demonstrated its vindictive, jealousy, anger, nastiness and spiteful nature towards Britain for having the temerity to vote to leave the delusional Valhalla that is the EU opinion of itself, and their determination to make an example of Britain to deter any other EU country from leaving.
5.7 This despite the colossal cost in lives and money that Britain and the Commonwealth paid to save “Europe” from total domination by Germany in two world wars!
QUESTION: With “friends“ like the EU who needs enemies?
Conclusion – So, thank you Angela Merkel. You have quite clearly endorsed the British public’s overwhelming good sense in voting to leave the cess pit that is the European Union which is run by the likes of you!
The Daily Express, 25 Jan 2020, said Canadian businesses are already now counting the cost of Canada’s trade “deal” with the EU.
Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance chief Claire Citeau said: “The negotiated terms are not being respected.
“There are always delays, there are always exorbitant costs.
“Some demands from the EU are not adapted to the Canadian market.
“EU exports have increased but Canadian exports have dropped by 10 percent. We now have a €3.5billion trade deficit!”
Overall EU exports to Canada rose 11 percent in 2018 from a year earlier, but Canadian agricultural exports to the EU fell 15 percent.
History is repeating itself. Witness the UK’s £2 trillion balance of payments deficit with the EU!